Kevin Weinstein

The applicant brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from his cell phones, arguing that the search warrant was issued based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) that relied on a search conducted by French police without verifying its legality.

The court found that the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence, including corroborative information from the French authorities, to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The court held that an affiant is not required to establish foreign law compliance as a precondition for a search warrant in Canada.

The application to exclude evidence under section 8 of the Charter was dismissed.

Procès criminel pour des infractions sexuelles alléguées contre une enfant de moins de 16 ans, y compris des attouchements sexuels et le fait d’avoir rendu accessible du matériel sexuellement explicite.

Le tribunal a évalué la crédibilité et la fiabilité de la jeune plaignante en tenant compte de son âge, de son développement et des incohérences non significatives dans ses diverses déclarations.

La preuve vidéo admise sous l’article 715.1 du Code criminel, ainsi que certains éléments de corroboration factuelle, ont convaincu le tribunal hors de tout doute raisonnable pour la majorité des chefs.

L’accusé a été déclaré coupable des chefs 2, 3, 4 et 5, mais non coupable du chef 1 en raison d’une preuve ambiguë sur le contact allégué avec le pénis.

A.M. was charged with five criminal offences, including two counts of sexual assault, mischief, assault with a weapon (knife), and assault by strangulation, against the complainant C.J., with whom he had a long-term relationship and children.

The trial focused heavily on C.J.'s credibility and reliability, particularly given inconsistencies in her testimony and her attempts to recant charges due to cultural and family pressures.

The court found A.M. guilty of both sexual assault charges and assault by strangulation, while acquitting him of mischief and assault with a weapon due to insufficient evidence.

The judge emphasized that C.J.'s cultural background and attempts to protect A.M. did not diminish her credibility or the reliability of her core allegations, which were corroborated by a recorded conversation where A.M. pressured her to lie.

The defendant was charged with possessing child pornography found on three devices: a desktop computer, an iPad, and a laptop computer, all seized on March 11, 2015.

A total of 1,288 images and 196 videos constituting child pornography were located across the devices.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence and the assertion that the defendant was the only person with access to the devices.

The trial judge found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the child pornography, as multiple other individuals had access to the devices and the investigating officer failed to investigate alternative suspects.

The charge was dismissed.